Https-pages still in the SERP's
-
Hi all,
my problem is the following: our CMS (self-developed) produces https-versions of our "normal" web pages, which means duplicate content.
Our it-department put the <noindex,nofollow>on the https pages, that was like 6 weeks ago.</noindex,nofollow>
I check the number of indexed pages once a week and still see a lot of these https pages in the Google index. I know that I may hit different data center and that these numbers aren't 100% valid, but still... sometimes the number of indexed https even moves up.
Any ideas/suggestions? Wait for a longer time? Or take the time and go to Webmaster Tools to kick them out of the index?
Another question: for a nice query, one https page ranks No. 1. If I kick the page out of the index, do you think that the http page replaces the No. 1 position? Or will the ranking be lost? (sends some nice traffic :-))...
thanx in advance
-
Hi Irving,
yes, you are right. The https login page is the "problem", other pages that I visit after are staying on https, as all the links on these page are https links. So you could surf all the pages on the domain in a https mode, if you visited the login page before
I spoke to our it department about this problem and they told me it would take time to program our CMS different. My boss then told me to find another, cheaper solution - so I came up with the noindex,nofollow.
So, do you see another solution whithout having to ask our it department again? They< are always very busy and almost have no time for nobody
-
Hi Malcolm,
thankx for the help. Before we put the noindex, nofollow on these pages, I thought about using the rel=canonical.
To be honest, I did not choose rel=canonical because I think that the noindex,nofollow ia a stronger sign for Google, and that the rel=canonical is more like a hint, which G does not always follow... but sure, i can be wrong!
You are saying that the noindex could end worse. The https-pages only contain links to https-pages, think of these pages like "normal" pages, same content, link structure etc. etc. Every URL just is a https, internal, external....
So I thought the noindex,nofollow would not hurt the http pages, because they cannot be found on the https ones - what do you think?
-
Is there a reason you're supporting both http and https versions of every page? If not, 301 redirect to either http or https for each page. I'd only leave pages that need to be secure as https, e.g. purchase pages. Non-secure pages are generally a better user experience in terms of load time since the user can use cached files from previous pages and non-encrypted pages are more lightweight.
If you're out to support both for those secure users who like https everywhere, I'd go with Malcolm's solution and rel canonical to the version you'd like to have indexed rather than using noindex nofollow.
-
do you have absolute links on your site that are keeping https?
For example, if you go to a secure login page and then click a homepage navigation link on the secure https page do you see the homepage link going back to http or staying on https?
That is usually the cause of this problem you should look into that. I would not manually request removal of the pages in WMT i would just fix the problem and let google update it itself.
-
have you tried canonicalising the http version?
Using a noindex nofollow rule could end up being worse as you are telling Google not to follow the pages or index them and this will include both http and https.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
I have recently re-done my website. My buyers guide and my category page are ranking for keywords I'm after.
I have recently re-done my entire site (only a few days). I believe Google is still re-crawling and updating (however, the amount of movement on other searches has been significant). My buyers guide is ranking very high for its intended keywords, as well as high for the keywords of the category page. Both are at the beginning of the second page and I wonder if its dragging me down. What do you think I should do? Is it to early to take action as everything has been completed redone.
Technical SEO | | Code2Chil0 -
Very wierd pages. 2900 403 errors in page crawl for a site that only has 140 pages.
Hi there, I just made a crawl of the website of one of my clients with the crawl tool from moz. I have 2900 403 errors and there is only 140 pages on the website. I will give an exemple of what the crawl error gives me. | http://www.mysite.com/en/www.mysite.com/en/en/index.html#?lang=en | http://www.mysite.com/en/www.mysite.com/en/en/en/index.html#?lang=en | http://www.mysite.com/en/www.mysite.com/en/en/en/en/index.html#?lang=en | http://www.mysite.com/en/www.mysite.com/en/en/en/en/en/index.html#?lang=en | http://www.mysite.com/en/www.mysite.com/en/en/en/en/en/en/index.html#?lang=en | http://www.mysite.com/en/www.mysite.com/en/en/en/en/en/en/index.html#?lang=en | http://www.mysite.com/en/www.mysite.com/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/index.html#?lang=en | http://www.mysite.com/en/www.mysite.com/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/index.html#?lang=en | http://www.mysite.com/en/www.mysite.com/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/index.html#?lang=en | http://www.mysite.com/en/www.mysite.com/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/en/index.html#?lang=en | | | | | | | | | | There are 2900 pages like this. I have tried visiting the pages and they work, but they are only html pages without CSS. Can you guys help me to see what the problems is. We have experienced huge drops in traffic since Septembre.
Technical SEO | | H.M.N.0 -
Should you use google url remover if older indexed pages are still being kept?
Hello, A client recently did a redesign a few months ago, resulting in 700 pages being reduced to 60, mostly due to panda penalty and just low interest in products on those pages. Now google is still indexing a good number of them ( around 650 ) when we only have 70 on our sitemap. Thing is google indexes our site on average now for 115 urls when we only have 60 urls that need indexing and only 70 on our sitemap. I would of thought these urls would be crawled and not found, but is taking a very long period of time. Our rankings haven't recovered as much as we'd hope, and we believe that the indexed older pages are causes this. Would you agree and also would you think removing those old urls via the remover tool would be best option? It would mean using the url remover tool for 650 pages. Thank you in advance
Technical SEO | | Deacyde0 -
Will a Robots.txt 'disallow' of a directory, keep Google from seeing 301 redirects for pages/files within the directory?
Hi- I have a client that had thousands of dynamic php pages indexed by Google that shouldn't have been. He has since blocked these php pages via robots.txt disallow. Unfortunately, many of those php pages were linked to by high quality sites mulitiple times (instead of the static urls) before he put up the php 'disallow'. If we create 301 redirects for some of these php URLs that area still showing high value backlinks and send them to the correct static URLs, will Google even see these 301 redirects and pass link value to the proper static URLs? Or will the robots.txt keep Google away and we lose all these high quality backlinks? I guess the same question applies if we use the canonical tag instead of the 301. Will the robots.txt keep Google from seeing the canonical tags on the php pages? Thanks very much, V
Technical SEO | | Voodak0 -
Why is robots.txt blocking URL's in sitemap?
Hi Folks, Any ideas why Google Webmaster Tools is indicating that my robots.txt is blocking URL's linked in my sitemap.xml, when in fact it isn't? I have checked the current robots.txt declarations and they are fine and I've also tested it in the 'robots.txt Tester' tool, which indicates for the URL's it's suggesting are blocked in the sitemap, in fact work fine. Is this a temporary issue that will be resolved over a few days or should I be concerned. I have recently removed the declaration from the robots.txt that would have been blocking them and then uploaded a new updated sitemap.xml. I'm assuming this issue is due to some sort of crossover. Thanks Gaz
Technical SEO | | PurpleGriffon0 -
Buying multiple domains: misspells & .net, org, etc. & 301's
Hi, an SEO guy told me to buy up domains like ours X.org, net, biz, etc. & mispellings. this could cost over $100/year. Is is worth it for SEO or is it just covering our @ss if competitors want to get stupid and buy those? I don't forsee competitors doing that. What do you suggest? Does Google actually give us points for those AND if we bought them are we supposed to redirect all of them to our site? Should I be doing this for our SEO clients? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | JCunningham0 -
Google doesn't rank the best page of our content for keywords. How to fix that?
Hello, We have a strange issue, which I think is due to legacy. Generally, we are a job board for students in France: http://jobetudiant.net (jobetudiant == studentjob in french) We rank quite well (2nd or 3rd) on "Job etudiant <city>", with the right page (the one that lists all job offers in that city). So this is great.</city> Now, for some reason, Google systematically puts another of our pages in front of that: the page that lists the jobs offers in the 'region' of that city. For example, check this page. the first link is a competitor, the 3rd is the "right" link (the job offers in annecy), but the 2nd link is the list of jobs in Haute Savoie (which is the 'departement'- equiv. to county) in which Annecy is... that's annoying. Is there a way to indicate Google that the 3rd page makes more sense for this search? Thanks
Technical SEO | | jgenesto0 -
How do i properly combine these two schema's from schema.org
So we're redoing our reviews/testimonials page on our website right now and moving over to the schema.org format as described here: http://schema.org/Review But we would like to combine each of our reviews with a location for which it was reviewed using this: http://schema.org/LocalBusiness What i can't wrap my head around would be the correct syntax? is it just the first block and then the next block? or is there a way of putting the actual physical address within the review page itself? So is this the correct way to do a page full of reviews that are reviewing various physical locations? * <div< span="">itemprop="reviews" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Review"></div<>* <span< span="">itemprop="name">Value purchase</span<> -* by <span< span="">itemprop="author">Lucas</span<>,* <meta< span="">itemprop="datePublished" content="2011-03-25">March 25, 2011</meta<>* <div< span="">itemprop="reviewRating" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Rating"></div<>* <meta< span="">itemprop="worstRating" content = "1"/></meta<>* <span< span="">itemprop="ratingValue">4</span<>/* <span< span="">itemprop="bestRating">5</span<>stars* <span< span="">itemprop="description">Great microwave for the price. It is small and</span<>* fits in my apartment. 1. <div< span="">itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/LocalBusiness"></div<> 2. # <span< span="">itemprop="name">Beachwalk Beachwear & Giftware</span<> 3. <span< span="">itemprop="description"> A superb collection of fine gifts and clothing</span<> 4. to accent your stay in Mexico Beach. 5. <div< span="">itemprop="address" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/PostalAddress"></div<> 6. <span< span="">itemprop="streetAddress">3102 Highway 98</span<> 7. <span< span="">itemprop="addressLocality">Mexico Beach</span<>, 8. <span< span="">itemprop="addressRegion">FL</span<> 10. Phone: <span< span="">itemprop="telephone">850-648-4200</span<> <div< span="">itemprop="reviews" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Review"></div<>* <span< span="">itemprop="name">Value purchase</span<> -* by <span< span="">itemprop="author">Lucas</span<>,* <meta< span="">itemprop="datePublished" content="2011-03-25">March 25, 2011</meta<>* <div< span="">itemprop="reviewRating" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Rating"></div<>* <meta< span="">itemprop="worstRating" content = "1"/></meta<>* <span< span="">itemprop="ratingValue">4</span<>/* <span< span="">itemprop="bestRating">5</span<>stars* <span< span="">itemprop="description">Great microwave for the price. It is small and</span<>* fits in my apartment. <div< span="">itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/LocalBusiness"></div<> <span< span="">itemprop="name">Beachwalk Beachwear & Giftware</span<> <span< span="">itemprop="description"> A superb collection of fine gifts and clothing</span<> to accent your stay in Mexico Beach. <div< span="">itemprop="address" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/PostalAddress"></div<> <span< span="">itemprop="streetAddress">3102 Highway 98</span<> <span< span="">itemprop="addressLocality">Mexico Beach</span<>, <span< span="">itemprop="addressRegion">FL</span<> Phone: <span< span="">itemprop="telephone">850-648-4200</span<>
Technical SEO | | adriandg0